Alfonso B. Busa Jr.

June 26, 2022

2018-05766

1. What was secular nationalism?

By definition, the word “secular'' means denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no
religious or spiritual basis. Hence, secular nationalism can be interpreted as the advocacy of or support for the
welfare of a nation that is not hinged on or dictated by religion. Secular nationalism was a vision for nation-building
during the 1950s, in the wake of the country’s independence. One key actor of that period was Jose Lansang, who
served as speechwriter of Pres. Elpidio Quirino. He sought to instill national pride through the study of history and
evoked a new Propaganda Movement, which was a largely secular-nationalist campaign.

2. What was the content of the Recto-Laurel Bill?

In 1956, Senate Bill 438, also known as the Rizal Bill, was introduced by Sen. Claro M. Recto and sponsored
by Jose P. Laurel, which stipulated that courses on the writer and his novels be made mandatory in all educational
institutions in the Philippines.

3. Why was there a need for the Catholic Church in the Philippines to come up with a “statement” or position on the
novels of Jose Rizal?

Fr. Horacio De la Costa first wrote drafts of a pastoral letter in 1951–1952 upon the request of a committee
of bishops. During that time, the Recto-Laurel bill had not yet been introduced. Initially, the intention to draft a
“Statement” was not as a response to the bill, but as a precautionary measure. A little over a year before the first
drafts were written, a controversy ensued concerning the proposal to publish for compulsory reading in public high
schools the Palma-Ozaeta book, Pride of the Malay Race. According to John Schumacher, the bishops perhaps
foresaw that similar attempts to use Rizal as a weapon against the church might be made in the future. Hence, the
request to draft a “Statement” in advance. The Recto-Laurel bill was formally introduced on April 4,1956 and in
response, the Catholic Church released their “Statement” on April 21 of the same year.

4. What did “proper context” mean in connection with reading and interpreting passages from Rizal’s novels?

According to De la Costa, “We must seek Rizal’s true meaning by a dispassionate examination of the works
themselves.” He also notes that a correct passage is capable of being interpreted to make the novels an attack on
the church. Hence, the novels must be understood in their proper context, which means examining them without
prejudice and preferably with guidance from competent teachers. In his first draft, De la Costa warned against
enemies of the church who by passages “torn violently from the context” use them to “discredit the Church in the
Philippines.” For instance, a poorly analyzed passage was interpreted to be an attack on the church, when in fact it
was not the church itself Rizal was attacking but the abuses in it. Rizal himself even warned not to confound the
abuses of religion with religion itself.

5. Cite some examples of the said “attacks” of Rizal on some Catholic doctrines?

Fr. Jesus Cavanna became the final author of the 1956 official “Statement.” He gave over 120 references
to passages that either “are against Catholic dogma and morals” or “disparage divine worship” or “make light of
ecclesiastical discipline.” One such passage is the one with Capitan Tiago’s veneration of the saints. However, upon
careful examination, rather than attacking the religious doctrine, the passage is actually satirizing “not the
invocation of saints as such, but the abuse of this practice by nominal Catholics like Capitan Tiago. Another passage
is the one where Rizal was alleged to attack the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, in which “certain sayings of Tasio
the Philosopher are quoted as proof.” However, upon close analysis, it was found that Rizal did not intend to take
all that is said there seriously, but rather was “merely using a common enough literary device, that of making a
character reveal himself instead of describing him.”
6. What was the overall position of the Church that was declared in the bishop’s “Statement”?

Overall, the Church insisted on an outright condemnation of Rizal’s novels. The “Statement” dealt with the
“unreasonableness and injustice” of the Recto-Laurel bill, which was referred to as making it obligatory for Catholic
students to read “attacks on their faith.” The “Statement” even quoted canon law forbidding certain types of books,
under whose categories it declared the two novels fell. It mentioned that only with permission of ecclesiastical
authority, “readily granted for justifiable reason” to those with sufficient knowledge of Catholic doctrine, could
they be read.

7. Do you agree with the statement that “it would be a sin for any Catholic to read the novels in their entirety?

No, I do not agree with the statement. As much as I understand the efforts of the Church to protect its
doctrines and dignity, I also believe that Rizal’s novels did not deserve such grave condemnation. It has been made
apparent with various pieces of evidence that Rizal never wished to attack the Catholic Church, but rather, to simply
call out the evils in it. In my opinion, the judgment of the Church was a manifestation of how religious agenda could
easily trample over well-thought-out academic perspectives. According to Schumacher, professors who have
taught the Rizal course have testified that no student ever found the novels to be contrary to their religious beliefs.
In his experience, people did not conceive it to be a sin to read Rizal’s novels. He also adds that by insisting on an
outright condemnation, the bishops did not prevent the novels from being read but merely removed the possibility
that there would be an annotated edition explaining the possibly offending passages.